Engagement - Still not very useful

[dam]

 

Yes, sir, Mr. Thread Police, sir! Because I respect your authority and care about your decisions about what is and isn't engagement-focused enough.

Cute. So how exactly does this improve the discussion on engagement being underpowered or not?

 

Not very much more than your previous, uncalled for, personal attack on him, possibly ?

[mostundesired]

Not very much more than your previous, uncalled for, personal attack on him, possibly ?

My apologies if it sounded like an attack. It was meant to be a suggestion that we focus more on how/if engagement needs improvement, and he seemed to me to be talking about that engagement needs to be fighter only to make up for general talents, which seemed unrelated.

 

I ask again, and clarify that I'm talking about balancing engagement for fighters only vs general weapon talents for fighters only, how does that make the discussion on engagement being underpowered better?

[dam]

 

Not very much more than your previous, uncalled for, personal attack on him, possibly ?

My apologies if it sounded like an attack. It was meant to be a suggestion that we focus more on how/if engagement needs improvement, and he seemed to me to be talking about that engagement needs to be fighter only to make up for general talents, which seemed unrelated.

 

I ask again, and clarify that I'm talking about balancing engagement for fighters only vs general weapon talents for fighters only, how does that make the discussion on engagement being underpowered better?

 

From a roleplaying and realism (haha, in a game, realism, I kill myself I do) point of view, it does make sense that only some people very proficient at melee may be able to tie up an enemy sufficiently that, should they try to run, one would get the opportunity of trying to score an attack.

 

You're used to melee combat, you're used to going close quarters, you can recognize your opponent's going to try to bolt, so you prepare to hit them (for free mind, remember that disengagement attacks are free, as in, no recovery) when it happens.

 

 

 

Obviously a counterpoint could be made that those less skilled in melee are less likely to land the attack in the first place, so they should still be able to engage.

 

 

 

I'm afraid I do not consider the change to engagement important enough to put much thought behind which version I like most, POE1 or POE2.

 

 

In the current state of the game however, it is clear that there isn't enough ability for frontliners to tie up opponents and keep them away from the backline by themselves, which is one of their main roles to begin with (the second one being soaking up the hits).

[mostundesired]

So add some sort of threat management to fighters, in short? I can get behind that.

[dam]

As in, threat management to dedicated frontliners, but no engagement system ?

 

In that situation the problem remains that, if your battlefield flow control ability fails, your MT is standing there like a retard.

 

 

 

A simple and very un-elegant solution would be for enemies to "prefer" attacking your tanks, but that nukes realism, the challenge of the fight and, let's face it, reasonable judgement.

 

 

 

 

A good solution might be to make disengagement attacks (very much) more punishing, so that when the AI (or you !) take the decision to disengage, you actually think twice.

 

This would push players and enemies (as in, it'd have a heavier weight in the decision algorithm) to :

- try harder to get an engagement on priority targets

- try harder to break engagement in a safe manner (remove the engagement altogether with CC, use evasive abilities)

- or lower the threat of the disengagement attack (lower the hit rate with debuffs, cast defensive abilities and spells on the engaged character...)

 

That, in my opinion, would make engagement meaningful again and allow for smoother battle flow control, and more tactical decision making both on the part of the AI and of the players.

 

 

Edit:

 

A parallel may be drawn to XCOM's (or shadowrun's) Overwatch system, whereby if you cross an enemy's line of fire (and they're in Overwatch mode), they get to attack you.

 

There, you think twice about moving your sniper (the fck is it doing in the range of an overwatch attack to begin with ???) or medic.

Edited November 22, 2017 by dam

[mostundesired]

I had meant adding threat management on top of engagement. Like, a passive to make enemies more likely to engage. Or unlikely to disengage. Or something.

 

EDIT: As is, Fighters already get an modal that makes enemies go prone if hit by disengagement attacks. And I think that in that mode, those attacks have higher accuracy, but that might just be in the first game.

Edited November 22, 2017 by mostundesired

[dam]

Making enemies more likely to engage refers back to my un-elegant solution above where they prefer your tanks.

 

The drawbacks I can think of on the fly of such an approach are :

- it only applies to the IA (I mean, really, a human's never gonna let himself get tied up by a 3 damage per second tank, while a cipher's nuking them at 30+ DPS)

- either terrible if the probability isn't high enough

or

- too strong and taking away the challenge of the fight in the first place

which means it'll have to be fine-tuned, thus becoming

- unreliable, chancy

 

 

 

(very much) More punishing disengagement attacks mean you actually have to take a gamble, do you risk losing 1/2 your health pool, and perhaps even worse suffering a Hobbled condition, or do you properly approach the situation ?

 

If caught in a bind, you can take the chance, but if not, you know you'll have to deal with the engagement correctly to avoid possibly game ending damage.

And by "game ending damage" I do not mean HP loss, it could be your character gets knocked down (hello bloodbowl fans !), or they get hobbled, or weakened.

Either way, there would be an actual penalty for disengaging, as opposed to a lousy Graze for 10 damage.

[mostundesired]

So how about something like an ability or talent to make disengagement attacks do more damage? And restrict it somehow, because whilst I like disengagement attacks being useful, I'm not fond of the idea that they are universally that strong.

[dam]

Aye, that would be a possibility to explore.

 

 

Obviously, as shown by Josh's recent twitter posts or dev/QA answers in these forums, Obsidian monitor closely the feedback they receive from testers.

I'm sure they have something in mind for engagement and battle flow control.

All the more so when the mechanic was changed from POE1, that's something they'll be keeping an eye on.

 

 

While it's never not often too soon to debate things, keep in mind the early focus here is probably on rooting out the most obvious or game breaking issues, at the current time.

[mostundesired]

My only doubt with the current suggestion is if it's even a really significant; if the fighter's ability to make enemies hit by disengagement go prone isn't significant enough already.

Edited November 22, 2017 by mostundesired

[Enduin]

I feel like giving front line classes some Taunt like and similar abilities would help with the engagement issue and with some of their rather paltry active ability trees. Fighter could get something like a Taunt cone AoE against Will that causes effect enemies to engage them, then for the next ~10 seconds they get a 50% dmg bonus to disengagement attacks. And/Or a single target Challenge that when successful locks target in engagement with the fighter for ~15 seconds or something like that.

 

Paladin's could also have a modal like Zealous Aura that offers X% increase in maintaining engagement with Y% boost to disengagement attacks. Where one mode has higher % bonus to maintaining engagement but low damage bonus, while the other has lower % bonus to maintaining engagement but a higher damage bonus to disengagement attacks.

 

That and/or have some baked in passives to disengagement attacks or optional passives players can choose that give disengagement attacks an X% chance of cause an enemy to re-engage when hit with a disengagement attack.

 

Or something like abilities/passives that effect enemy stride and then have disengagement attacks occur as long as an enemy is within X meters of character. So you can reduce an enemies movement speed with an ability and if they then try to disengage their slower movement will cause them to be within range of you disengagement attacks longer.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Enduin

[mostundesired]

give disengagement attacks an X% chance of cause an enemy to re-engage when hit with a disengagement attack.

This, I like. Maybe even stronger than that, make them re-engage when targetted, hit or miss.

 

Here's a thought that hasn't come up, though: what about enemies that have abilities to escape engagement like a rogue or ranger has? How do we deal with what happens when they break out of engagement with no repercussion?

[dam]

 

give disengagement attacks an X% chance of cause an enemy to re-engage when hit with a disengagement attack.

This, I like. Maybe even stronger than that, make them re-engage when targetted, hit or miss.

 

Here's a thought that hasn't come up, though: what about enemies that have abilities to escape engagement like a rogue or ranger has? How do we deal with what happens when they break out of engagement with no repercussion?

 

First of all, keep in mind breaking that engagement had a cost, the use of rogue resource that could have been used on a Blind instead, so we're not talking about a free disengage there.

 

Second, if when that happens, then it's time for you to get out your own tools to negate or mitigate the engagement (CC, debuffs, buffs on engaged char, your own disengage...) .

 

 

Negating the backliners' ability to get to your own backline would make the game absolutely monotonous and boring, the AI needs some way to at least try and get to your threatening units.

 

 

 

 

Think of it like chess if you will.

Your opponent has paid a cost (his move) for a strategic play.

It's now your turn to pay the cost (your move) to counter said play.

Edited November 22, 2017 by dam

[mostundesired]

Yes, of course, I'm talking about which tools should or shouldn't be provided when that happens. You did lay out some good ones, though, so I'm satisfied with that answer.

 

It brings me back to a point I made earlier, though: the longer a battle goes on, the less options you have to deal with engagement, especially if more enemies show up. That's the weakness I see with engagement. Once it's surpassed, it's not effective. If it can't be surpassed, it's all powerful against squishies. What tools do you have once your tank's engagement has been surpassed and you no longer can evade it yourself?

 

Arguably, passives that make engagement attacks less accurate is the answer, but I'm raising the question regardless.

[KDubya]

Too many to respond with quotes so here goes:

 

No TAUNTS, I can't stress that enough. Making a Fighter a taunting punching bag is not what I want. Quickest way to get me to never use a Fighter again and if you make it mandatory for the game then I'll be looking for something else to play.

 

The Unbroken perk is that an enemy getting hit for disengaging gets hit at +10 penetration which will over penetrate for the x30% multiplicative damage boost. Later you can take the prone as well. Considering that Devoted gets +3 penetration all the time and a +25% crit damage this seems highly conditional but great when it fires off.

 

The issue is that using Defender, a spear and Unbroken with shield gets you six engagements which are too many to actually use. Multi with a Shieldbearer Paladin and you'd get another, take another ability and get another. So far we could have eight engagements with mundane equipment and two abilities. If the normal maximum number of engagements is four due to reach and model size then a lot of these abilities are overkill and wasted.

 

Ultimately looking for a reason not to take Devoted as an auto pick. If four engagements is pretty much the max then using a Devoted with defender stance is better, or going Devoted/Shield Bearer using warrior or even cleave stance with a spear for three engagements. 

[mostundesired]

Too many to respond with quotes so here goes:

 

No TAUNTS, I can't stress that enough. Making a Fighter a taunting punching bag is not what I want. Quickest way to get me to never use a Fighter again and if you make it mandatory for the game then I'll be looking for something else to play.

 

The Unbroken perk is that an enemy getting hit for disengaging gets hit at +10 penetration which will over penetrate for the x30% multiplicative damage boost. Later you can take the prone as well. Considering that Devoted gets +3 penetration all the time and a +25% crit damage this seems highly conditional but great when it fires off.

 

The issue is that using Defender, a spear and Unbroken with shield gets you six engagements which are too many to actually use. Multi with a Shieldbearer Paladin and you'd get another, take another ability and get another. So far we could have eight engagements with mundane equipment and two abilities. If the normal maximum number of engagements is four due to reach and model size then a lot of these abilities are overkill and wasted.

 

Ultimately looking for a reason not to take Devoted as an auto pick. If four engagements is pretty much the max then using a Devoted with defender stance is better, or going Devoted/Shield Bearer using warrior or even cleave stance with a spear for three engagements. 

Lack of physical space might very well be the biggest issue, yes. So how do we solve this? Increase the range of engagement for Unbroken/Shieldbearers? That would solve the issue of not just being unable to hold all those engagements, but also enemies just walking around the fighter with ease. Any downsides to that, besides it looking silly?

 

Side note, I'm curious what your reason for being so vehemently against taunts is? If everything was exactly the same, but they just threw taunts on top of it, would that be acceptable? Please elaborate if not.

[KDubya]

 

Too many to respond with quotes so here goes:

 

No TAUNTS, I can't stress that enough. Making a Fighter a taunting punching bag is not what I want. Quickest way to get me to never use a Fighter again and if you make it mandatory for the game then I'll be looking for something else to play.

 

The Unbroken perk is that an enemy getting hit for disengaging gets hit at +10 penetration which will over penetrate for the x30% multiplicative damage boost. Later you can take the prone as well. Considering that Devoted gets +3 penetration all the time and a +25% crit damage this seems highly conditional but great when it fires off.

 

The issue is that using Defender, a spear and Unbroken with shield gets you six engagements which are too many to actually use. Multi with a Shieldbearer Paladin and you'd get another, take another ability and get another. So far we could have eight engagements with mundane equipment and two abilities. If the normal maximum number of engagements is four due to reach and model size then a lot of these abilities are overkill and wasted.

 

Ultimately looking for a reason not to take Devoted as an auto pick. If four engagements is pretty much the max then using a Devoted with defender stance is better, or going Devoted/Shield Bearer using warrior or even cleave stance with a spear for three engagements. 

Lack of physical space might very well be the biggest issue, yes. So how do we solve this? Increase the range of engagement for Unbroken/Shieldbearers? That would solve the issue of not just being unable to hold all those engagements, but also enemies just walking around the fighter with ease. Any downsides to that, besides it looking silly?

 

Side note, I'm curious what your reason for being so vehemently against taunts is? If everything was exactly the same, but they just threw taunts on top of it, would that be acceptable? Please elaborate if not.

 

 

A way to make use of all those engagements would be great. Not with the intention of keeping enemies locked down but the ability to dish out massive disengagement attacks to multiple targets. But if the threat of a big hit was enough to keep them engaged that'd be fine as well. This way a Fighter can control the battlespace, it could be their 'thing'

 

My issue with taunts is that it will make the optimal meta to be make a tanky meatbag who needs no offensive abilities and exists to be hard to hit and to attract everything so that the rest of the team rains down AoE safely from a distance. Then when this becomes too strong Fighters get nerfed into oblivion. Look at what happened to Fighters in PoE with the Defender patch.

 

I really dislike games that require the holy trinity style that MMOs tend to use.

[Enduin]

 

 

Too many to respond with quotes so here goes:

 

No TAUNTS, I can't stress that enough. Making a Fighter a taunting punching bag is not what I want. Quickest way to get me to never use a Fighter again and if you make it mandatory for the game then I'll be looking for something else to play.

 

The Unbroken perk is that an enemy getting hit for disengaging gets hit at +10 penetration which will over penetrate for the x30% multiplicative damage boost. Later you can take the prone as well. Considering that Devoted gets +3 penetration all the time and a +25% crit damage this seems highly conditional but great when it fires off.

 

The issue is that using Defender, a spear and Unbroken with shield gets you six engagements which are too many to actually use. Multi with a Shieldbearer Paladin and you'd get another, take another ability and get another. So far we could have eight engagements with mundane equipment and two abilities. If the normal maximum number of engagements is four due to reach and model size then a lot of these abilities are overkill and wasted.

 

Ultimately looking for a reason not to take Devoted as an auto pick. If four engagements is pretty much the max then using a Devoted with defender stance is better, or going Devoted/Shield Bearer using warrior or even cleave stance with a spear for three engagements.

 

Lack of physical space might very well be the biggest issue, yes. So how do we solve this? Increase the range of engagement for Unbroken/Shieldbearers? That would solve the issue of not just being unable to hold all those engagements, but also enemies just walking around the fighter with ease. Any downsides to that, besides it looking silly?

 

Side note, I'm curious what your reason for being so vehemently against taunts is? If everything was exactly the same, but they just threw taunts on top of it, would that be acceptable? Please elaborate if not.

A way to make use of all those engagements would be great. Not with the intention of keeping enemies locked down but the ability to dish out massive disengagement attacks to multiple targets. But if the threat of a big hit was enough to keep them engaged that'd be fine as well. This way a Fighter can control the battlespace, it could be their 'thing'

 

My issue with taunts is that it will make the optimal meta to be make a tanky meatbag who needs no offensive abilities and exists to be hard to hit and to attract everything so that the rest of the team rains down AoE safely from a distance. Then when this becomes too strong Fighters get nerfed into oblivion. Look at what happened to Fighters in PoE with the Defender patch.

 

I really dislike games that require the holy trinity style that MMOs tend to use.

Well when I suggested taunts I envisioned them as being high cost abilities that you would only realistically be able to use once or twice in a battle. I don't want them to be auto magnets that trap enemies, but simply a too to help at least try to regain engagement as battle progresses. But not a guaranteed one.

 

Otherwise I agree with your fears and concerns with the mechanic. I just think done right it could work without being too OP nor dramatically altering the flow and feel of combat.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Enduin

[mostundesired]

My issue with taunts is that it will make the optimal meta to be make a tanky meatbag who needs no offensive abilities and exists to be hard to hit and to attract everything so that the rest of the team rains down AoE safely from a distance. Then when this becomes too strong Fighters get nerfed into oblivion. Look at what happened to Fighters in PoE with the Defender patch.

That makes sense. When you put it that way, I'd rather Fighters (or whatever other class) be tanks through strategy and character building, rather than through a single "fite me" button. Although I still think the latter has its place, it doesn't seem a good fit for Pillars. It works well in a game like Dragon Age where they're designed explicitly to be distracting meatbags. I can see how that would be cheesey in a game more about tactics, though.

[dam]

 

Too many to respond with quotes so here goes:

 

No TAUNTS, I can't stress that enough. Making a Fighter a taunting punching bag is not what I want. Quickest way to get me to never use a Fighter again and if you make it mandatory for the game then I'll be looking for something else to play.

 

The Unbroken perk is that an enemy getting hit for disengaging gets hit at +10 penetration which will over penetrate for the x30% multiplicative damage boost. Later you can take the prone as well. Considering that Devoted gets +3 penetration all the time and a +25% crit damage this seems highly conditional but great when it fires off.

 

The issue is that using Defender, a spear and Unbroken with shield gets you six engagements which are too many to actually use. Multi with a Shieldbearer Paladin and you'd get another, take another ability and get another. So far we could have eight engagements with mundane equipment and two abilities. If the normal maximum number of engagements is four due to reach and model size then a lot of these abilities are overkill and wasted.

 

Ultimately looking for a reason not to take Devoted as an auto pick. If four engagements is pretty much the max then using a Devoted with defender stance is better, or going Devoted/Shield Bearer using warrior or even cleave stance with a spear for three engagements. 

Lack of physical space might very well be the biggest issue, yes. So how do we solve this? Increase the range of engagement for Unbroken/Shieldbearers? That would solve the issue of not just being unable to hold all those engagements, but also enemies just walking around the fighter with ease. Any downsides to that, besides it looking silly?

 

Side note, I'm curious what your reason for being so vehemently against taunts is? If everything was exactly the same, but they just threw taunts on top of it, would that be acceptable? Please elaborate if not.

 

 

That would solve nothing, you're creating a pigeonhole where your tank needs to be a spear-wielding unbroken/shieldbearer, you're not solving the underlying issue.

 

 

 

 

Maybe the actual problem is that you guys work under the assumption that your one, main tank should, for some reason or another, be able to hold off 6-8 enemies at the same time ?

 

 

Your conundrum is the following :

- you have E enemies to deal with

- you have T tanks

- you have S support, cc or debuff characters

- you have N nuke, high dps (burst, or sustained, or area) damage dealers

 

How you deal with your E enemies depends on how many tanks you have, how many supports, how many damage dealers.

 

 

 

Got only the one tank and the rest are 3 supports + 1 nuke ?

Good, buy enough time with your tank that your supports can disable enemies, kill them off with your nuker.

By the time your chain CC wears off, you should be down to a more manageable enemy force.

 

Got 2 tanks, 1 support and 2 nukes ? (Edit: oopsie, 2 + 1 + 3 = 6, we only get 5 party members in POE2)

Good, engage as many enemies as possible with your tanks (buff them with your support, or cc some more enemies), and rush the high profile, high threat enemies with your nukes.

 

 

It all comes down to party composition, you're either purchasing enough time to thin the enemy ranks through engagement (tanks) or CC/debuffs (supports), or opting to inflict as much damage as possible from the start and deal with the remaining pieces after acquiring a numerical advantage.

 

 

You wish for more tanking, you need yourself a second tanky-ish character, be it a paladin, a monk, a chanter or whatever else you come up with.

Can't have a super tank that aggroes 20 enemies by himself.

Edited November 23, 2017 by dam

[KDubya]

 

 

Too many to respond with quotes so here goes:

 

No TAUNTS, I can't stress that enough. Making a Fighter a taunting punching bag is not what I want. Quickest way to get me to never use a Fighter again and if you make it mandatory for the game then I'll be looking for something else to play.

 

The Unbroken perk is that an enemy getting hit for disengaging gets hit at +10 penetration which will over penetrate for the x30% multiplicative damage boost. Later you can take the prone as well. Considering that Devoted gets +3 penetration all the time and a +25% crit damage this seems highly conditional but great when it fires off.

 

The issue is that using Defender, a spear and Unbroken with shield gets you six engagements which are too many to actually use. Multi with a Shieldbearer Paladin and you'd get another, take another ability and get another. So far we could have eight engagements with mundane equipment and two abilities. If the normal maximum number of engagements is four due to reach and model size then a lot of these abilities are overkill and wasted.

 

Ultimately looking for a reason not to take Devoted as an auto pick. If four engagements is pretty much the max then using a Devoted with defender stance is better, or going Devoted/Shield Bearer using warrior or even cleave stance with a spear for three engagements. 

Lack of physical space might very well be the biggest issue, yes. So how do we solve this? Increase the range of engagement for Unbroken/Shieldbearers? That would solve the issue of not just being unable to hold all those engagements, but also enemies just walking around the fighter with ease. Any downsides to that, besides it looking silly?

 

Side note, I'm curious what your reason for being so vehemently against taunts is? If everything was exactly the same, but they just threw taunts on top of it, would that be acceptable? Please elaborate if not.

 

 

That would solve nothing, you're creating a pigeonhole where your tank needs to be a spear-wielding unbroken/shieldbearer, you're not solving the underlying issue.

 

 

 

 

Maybe the actual problem is that you guys work under the assumption that your one, main tank should, for some reason or another, be able to hold off 6-8 enemies at the same time ?

 

 

Your conundrum is the following :

- you have E enemies to deal with

- you have T tanks

- you have S support, cc or debuff characters

- you have N nuke, high dps (burst, or sustained, or area) damage dealers

 

How you deal with your E enemies depends on how many tanks you have, how many supports, how many damage dealers.

 

 

 

Got only the one tank and the rest are 3 supports + 1 nuke ?

Good, buy enough time with your tank that your supports can disable enemies, kill them off with your nuker.

By the time your chain CC wears off, you should be down to a more manageable enemy force.

 

Got 2 tanks, 1 support and 3 nukes ?

Good, engage as many enemies as possible with your tanks (buff them with your support, or cc some more enemies), and rush the high profile, high threat enemies with your nukes.

 

 

It all comes down to party composition, you're either purchasing enough time to thin the enemy ranks through engagement (tanks) or CC/debuffs (supports), or opting to inflict as much damage as possible from the start and deal with the remaining pieces after acquiring a numerical advantage.

 

 

You wish for more tanking, you need yourself a second tanky-ish character, be it a paladin, a monk, a chanter or whatever else you come up with.

Can't have a super tank that aggroes 20 enemies by himself.

 

 

Not looking for a super tank, just trying to see what the practical limit on number of engagements is. It looks to be like 4 so anything beyond that is wasted. That can be reached just by activating Defender stance, no special weapons or additional powers are needed. Unbroken still adds value in that a +10 penetration attack is huge when applied to a disengagement attack that also gets +100% damage and will prone with an upgrade. You just don't need to use a spear and its modal to get there.

 

The theory was more along the lines of a phalanx type team where the high engagement guys are in the front row while guys with reach weapons would hit as well preferably with Barbarian Carnage for extra fun. If the enemy stayed on the front ranks they get killed, if they try to get to the rest of the team they disengage and get killed faster.

 

In PoE my PotD teams were pretty much always durable melee teams without any casters at all. If everyone is a durable damage dealer there are no soft targets that need protecting.

[mostundesired]

 

 

That would solve nothing, you're creating a pigeonhole where your tank needs to be a spear-wielding unbroken/shieldbearer, you're not solving the underlying issue.

 

Firstly, I'll be pedantic and point out that we weren't talking about that, we were talking about the fact that you already have potentially four extra engagement slots that are useless, and I was proposing a way to make them useful. If you wanted to do away with those extra slots entirely, I wouldn't be opposed.

 

 

 

Maybe the actual problem is that you guys work under the assumption that your one, main tank should, for some reason or another, be able to hold off 6-8 enemies at the same time ?

 

 

Your conundrum is the following :

- you have E enemies to deal with

- you have T tanks

- you have S support, cc or debuff characters

- you have N nuke, high dps (burst, or sustained, or area) damage dealers

 

How you deal with your E enemies depends on how many tanks you have, how many supports, how many damage dealers.

 

 

 

Got only the one tank and the rest are 3 supports + 1 nuke ?

Good, buy enough time with your tank that your supports can disable enemies, kill them off with your nuker.

By the time your chain CC wears off, you should be down to a more manageable enemy force.

 

Got 2 tanks, 1 support and 2 nukes ? (Edit: oopsie, 2 + 1 + 3 = 6, we only get 5 party members in POE2)

Good, engage as many enemies as possible with your tanks (buff them with your support, or cc some more enemies), and rush the high profile, high threat enemies with your nukes.

 

 

It all comes down to party composition, you're either purchasing enough time to thin the enemy ranks through engagement (tanks) or CC/debuffs (supports), or opting to inflict as much damage as possible from the start and deal with the remaining pieces after acquiring a numerical advantage.

 

 

You wish for more tanking, you need yourself a second tanky-ish character, be it a paladin, a monk, a chanter or whatever else you come up with.

Can't have a super tank that aggroes 20 enemies by himself.

 

 

I'm actually really bad at multitasking, so I tend to only play with two min-maxed characters of my favorite classes, a Fighter and a Rogue. What you're arguing for is to necessitate a full party, which I think is a more roundabout (but still valid) solution to the problem of all those useless engagement slots. I would prefer, instead, to have both options. Either I can make a full party like how you described, or I can stack engagement and defenses on my Fighter/Paladin while my Rogue/Ranger goes to town.

 

So I guess now I'm trying to figure out why having one super tank is a bad thing. Balance issues I see are that it leads to one main tank and a bunch of DPS. I guess you could add enemies that can escape engagement, or attack other characters while engaged to counter that. You could also call it boring, but in that case, it's a matter of player choice whether or not to go with it.

[dam]

 

 

 

That would solve nothing, you're creating a pigeonhole where your tank needs to be a spear-wielding unbroken/shieldbearer, you're not solving the underlying issue.

 

Firstly, I'll be pedantic and point out that we weren't talking about that, we were talking about the fact that you already have potentially four extra engagement slots that are useless, and I was proposing a way to make them useful. If you wanted to do away with those extra slots entirely, I wouldn't be opposed.

 

 

 

Maybe the actual problem is that you guys work under the assumption that your one, main tank should, for some reason or another, be able to hold off 6-8 enemies at the same time ?

 

 

Your conundrum is the following :

- you have E enemies to deal with

- you have T tanks

- you have S support, cc or debuff characters

- you have N nuke, high dps (burst, or sustained, or area) damage dealers

 

How you deal with your E enemies depends on how many tanks you have, how many supports, how many damage dealers.

 

 

 

Got only the one tank and the rest are 3 supports + 1 nuke ?

Good, buy enough time with your tank that your supports can disable enemies, kill them off with your nuker.

By the time your chain CC wears off, you should be down to a more manageable enemy force.

 

Got 2 tanks, 1 support and 2 nukes ? (Edit: oopsie, 2 + 1 + 3 = 6, we only get 5 party members in POE2)

Good, engage as many enemies as possible with your tanks (buff them with your support, or cc some more enemies), and rush the high profile, high threat enemies with your nukes.

 

 

It all comes down to party composition, you're either purchasing enough time to thin the enemy ranks through engagement (tanks) or CC/debuffs (supports), or opting to inflict as much damage as possible from the start and deal with the remaining pieces after acquiring a numerical advantage.

 

 

You wish for more tanking, you need yourself a second tanky-ish character, be it a paladin, a monk, a chanter or whatever else you come up with.

Can't have a super tank that aggroes 20 enemies by himself.

 

 

I'm actually really bad at multitasking, so I tend to only play with two min-maxed characters of my favorite classes, a Fighter and a Rogue. What you're arguing for is to necessitate a full party, which I think is a more roundabout (but still valid) solution to the problem of all those useless engagement slots. I would prefer, instead, to have both options. Either I can make a full party like how you described, or I can stack engagement and defenses on my Fighter/Paladin while my Rogue/Ranger goes to town.

 

So I guess now I'm trying to figure out why having one super tank is a bad thing. Balance issues I see are that it leads to one main tank and a bunch of DPS. I guess you could add enemies that can escape engagement, or attack other characters while engaged to counter that. You could also call it boring, but in that case, it's a matter of player choice whether or not to go with it.

 

 

Regarding point the first, I would have to agree these engagement slots appear, at the time, wasted.

 

Regarding point the second, I can definitely see your stance on the matter, I myself am not a big fan of micromanaging too many characters (didn't prevent me from bitching when they announced 5 instead of 6 party members).

 

We need keep in mind, however, that the game's balance is established around a full, somewhat balanced party.

The game is not tuned for 2-3 member parties, let alone solo runs.

 

This, Obsidian has made clear over the years (but I'm too lazy to go and find references, really) if memory serves.

 

 

 

I do agree with you on having the option being nice, it would give those that wish for it more flexibility.

 

That'd come at the cost of realism, but it is not my place (nor anyone else's) to tell people how they should play their game, if the option exists.

[mostundesired]

Good to hear we're in agreement. So do you think having those 8 engagement slots one one super tank is a bad thing for a full party? The way I see it, it's not inherently so. I can tell you from personal experience, if you have all those enemies on you, you either need to minmax or have a healer/disabler/lot of DPS coming from other characters to keep that tank from dying. Having all those other character types, like you mentioned, is still necessary if we're basing it solely on the ability to hold enemies in place.

 

As for minmaxing, the only people you have to worry about for that is challenge enthusiasts who play harder modes (in which case, you probably don't want to balance the game around them) or weirdos like me who find excuses to minmax on normal difficulty

[dam]

Good to hear we're in agreement. So do you think having those 8 engagement slots one one super tank is a bad thing for a full party? The way I see it, it's not inherently so. I can tell you from personal experience, if you have all those enemies on you, you either need to minmax or have a healer/disabler/lot of DPS coming from other characters to keep that tank from dying. Having all those other character types, like you mentioned, is still necessary if we're basing it solely on the ability to hold enemies in place.

 

As for minmaxing, the only people you have to worry about for that is challenge enthusiasts who play harder modes (in which case, you probably don't want to balance the game around them) or weirdos like me who find excuses to minmax on normal difficulty

 

Yeah no you're preaching to the choir, wrt minmaxing

 

 

 

 

That we be in agreement is, to be honest, not very much of an issue for me.

Civilized people can very well agree to disagree, it is one's most sacred right to be entitled to their own opinion, for whatever reason they deem appropriate (including having no reason at all).

 

 

 

 

I do find it idiotic from a realism point of view that your one tank be able to hold off 8 or so enemies, that just does not sit comfortably with me.

That being said, it is not my place to try and prevent others from doing so, should the option be available to them.

 

I was merely pointing out that, with regards to balance, the game is not tailored for the kind of hardcore runs some of us enjoy, and does offer alternative ways to protect one's backline.

 

 

 

 

That a tank with 8 engagement slots is not able to hold off 8 enemies for no other reason than them being unable to cluster around him, is a different matter.

 

Either it is deemed idiotic in the first place and something other than these extra engagement slots must be offered in lieu, to compensate for the lower battlefield control.

Or it is deemed feasible, and the engagement range needs to be adjusted so the slots are usable, or some kind of ability must enable you to have longer reach.